I have been a securities lawyer for 32 years. In that business we focus on
keeping misinformation out of prospectuses that are designed to sell stock.
Under the law misinformation is not only an affirmative misrepresentation, but
is also an "omission" to state a fact that is necessary to make other
statements made not misleading. Over the years I have found that major
misinformation frequently exists in what is not said.

With that preamble, I have the following comments about the letters of
Messrs. Grogger, Krebs and Humberg that were posted in the Pratt Tribune on Dec
13 in response to my defense of IDnet that was posted on December 6, 2000.

The most telling part about the three letters, is that all omit to respond
to any of the substantive issues raised in my letter. By omitting any discussion
of the key issues they draw public attention away from the real issue and focus
it on false characterizations of the motives of IDnet and KCFS.

The key issue raised by my letter and ignored by the three responses is
whether the science establishment and our public schools should use the
philosophy of Naturalism to censor evidence that undermines Darwinism and that
supports an inference that living systems may be designed. My letter also
details rather specific instances of misinformation for which no public rebuttal
is given.

The evidence of design that appears in nature is overwhelming. It has been
recognized by scientists, philosophers and theologians since the beginning of
civilization. Even the most ardent ID opponents recognize that living systems
appear to be designed. What is happening now is that as science develops even
more sophisticated techniques to observe nature, it is finding even more
evidence of design. Cosmologists are finding the universe fine-tuned to such a
degree that they are being forced to develop speculative theories of multiple
universes to avoid a design inference. Biochemists are finding a language and
libraries of information in each of our cells that direct the construction of
machines and systems that defy explanation by anything other than design.
Geology (a field in which I was trained and continue to pursue as an avocation)
is discovering a fossil record that is more consistent with a design inference
than the competing Darwinian theory.

The question facing our culture is whether we are going to use Naturalism
to ignore, suppress and censor this evidence of design so that our children and
their children will come to believe that they are merely the purposeless
products of the laws of chemistry and physics and not the product of any design.

Websterís defines Naturalism as "the doctrine that cause-and-effect
laws (as of physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for ALL phenomena and
that teleological [design] conceptions of nature are invalid." Although a
major objective of IDnet is to promote design theory, its primary objective is
to remove the philosophic constraint which censors it.

Although Naturalism may work in sciences that are focused on observation
and experiment, as in the case of physics and chemistry, Naturalism does not
work in evolutionary biology and other origins sciences which are HISTORICAL
sciences that seek to "construct a historical narrative" of past
events.

If Naturalism was applied to arson investigations to censor design
inferences all arsonists would go free.

That is the problem with origins science. The science establishment is
telling its members to ignore and censor the evidence of design that is observed
to occur in nature. They are also told to refrain from any criticism of
Darwinism because that criticism supports design theory. Scientists are told
that their task is to look only for ways to support Darwinism. All of this
censorship reflects Naturalism in action.

If there is any uncertainty about the true intention of the KCFS and the
science establishment, ask how they propose to change the definition of science
in the existing Kansas science standards. They are presently circulating a draft
of new standards that seek to eliminate logic from science and replace it with
Naturalism by changing the definition of science. Science is now defined as the
"activity of seeking LOGICAL explanations for what we observe in the world
around us." The KCFS backed draft defines science as the "activity of
seeking NATURAL explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
Curious as it may seem, the battle is really over a single word that will
determine whether origins science will be driven by logic or philosophy.

We have repeatedly pointed out in writing the logical, scientific, legal
and cultural problems that arise with the teaching and preaching Naturalism to
our children in public schools. However, rather than respond to these
criticisms, the KCFS has engaged in misinformation by diverting public attention
from these arguments through mischaracterizations of their own motives and the
motives of IDnet.

This tactic is never more apparent than in the three letters. They exhibit
a complete lack of substantive response to any of the key issues mentioned above
and in my letter of December 6. Instead, they label a logical design inference
drawn from evidence that appears in nature as religion and call it
"Intelligent Design Creationism." They use the word
"Creationism" because they want the public to improperly equate design
inferences with the teaching of "creation science" which courts have
held to be a violation of the constitution. "Creation science" has
been defined by the courts as an endeavor which seeks to prove the truth of the
Genesis account of creation. Although a design inference supports any theistic
belief, an inference drawn from naturally occurring evidence is not a religion
and the ACLU and the KCFS know that.

As the KCFS knows, the ID movement is focused on keeping Naturalism and
the Darwinian theory that it protects from being preached in our schools as a
religion. Rather than being a religious organization, IDnet is one focused on
getting religion and philosophy out of origins science so that origins science
will be driven only by logic, the evidence and the scientific method. If there
is any doubt about the focus of IDnet, go to our web site and read the IDnet
publications that are listed on the publications page [http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/publications.htm].

The other deceptive strategy used by the science establishment is to lead
the public into believing that origins science acts like an independent,
unbiased and trustworthy arson investigator. As to evolutionary biology and
other areas of origins science, that is not the case. In those areas the agenda
is to tell only a "naturalistic" account of how things came to be.
Design inferences are not allowed. When origins science protects its explanation
from criticism and the evidence that supports the competing hypothesis, it
becomes a religion and a philosophy and not a science. The KCFS is not for
science. The agenda of the KCFS is to promote the philosophy of Naturalism in
origins science.

I will acknowledge that my letter equates the misinformation of the public
to support the teaching and preaching of Naturalism to our children and our
culture as one that is akin to the same sort of naturalistic misinformation that
led a large segment of the German population to support a eugenics program of
mind numbing proportions. However, I donít see any problem with the analogy
when one considers the long range consequences of a continuation of this brain
washing. Although Matt Groggerís claim that "we have no 8 inch guns"
may be literally true, the misinformation that is being fed into the minds of
our children and the public on the origin of life and its diversity can be far
more destructive over time than a nuclear war head. In a cultural war, which
Jack Krebs just calls a "political conflict," misinformation used by
powerful institutions can be far more powerful than 8 inch shells.